Son damaged neighbours car. Advice please

chinagirl

pink_phantom wrote: »

This is my point. Why weren't they being supervised correctly? Surely if they were playing with bricks that is a danger in itself. When you leave your kids with someone, you expect them to watch them to some degree.

.............................

Oh get real! They are children. You used to be one once, and I am sure you were not supervised 24/7 !

vickyj

pinkfluffybabe wrote: »

As a driver I would be well narked if some kids were playing with bricks near my car. People work hard to buy a nice car and no amount of 'its just a material object' means that others can damage it (intentionally or otherwise) without paying for the damage.

I respected the OP saying that they would pay for the damage and not expect the car owner to claim. I don't expect to pay excesses and lose my no claims due to others carelessness. However, starting the chat about how far apart the marks are strikes me as maybe trying to get out of it, which isn't reasonable.

I cn understnd exactly what you are saying so allow me to explain why i think i have not heard the whole story.
It is an 54 reg astra and the damage is as follows
all on rear nearside
1. graze style scratch to rear quaterlight window close to boot
2: graze to centre of back window about 40 cms over
3: dent to centre of back door in centre
4: dent & scratch parralell to one aboveabout 25 cms over

The parent assures me that she only found one brick but i am really confused how it managed to hit the rear quaterlight THEN the back window a good 40 centemetres to the left but parralell. if there was 2 bricks thrown then i could understand the damage but the mother sad there was def only one and the boys have confirmed each others story exactly that they only threw it once. there is no way that at 6 & just 7 that they are good enough at rehursing a story to be this convincing. I am more than prepared enough to pay for the damage but i jus cant help at having my doubts. even my uncle who runs a body shop said it is unlikely one brick would have done that much damage.

chuckles1066

nadnad wrote: »

Education relatated huh? well as you don't know me - at all you do not know to what standard I am educated. I daresay its possibly more than yourself - however I won't get into a competition at the present time.

Have you looked up the meaning of contradictory? What I have stated is certainly not contradictory - the mother of this child has accepted responsibility - ie she has said yes it is my childs fault (partly) and she has said yes lets get this sorted the best way possible - which in this case was to use insurance.

The best way possible for whom?

nadnad wrote: »

Are you saying you cannot accept resonsibility for something and then use insurance to pay for it? in other words if you drive into the back of someone in order to accept the consequences of your actions you have to pay for that damage yourself? can you not use the insurance which you pay for and which is legally there (in those circumstances) to cover such an event?

If you drive into the back of someone then you're negligent? Why should someone else have to pay for your negligence?

nadnad wrote: »

Dear sir your posts actually have no purpose other than to drive others to distraction with your petty ways and your nonsense talk - hence the comment about you being a BIG OLD TROLL, figuratively speaking of course. or maybe you didnt pick up on that.

And my goodness you're only 43 - you poor thing, with an attitude like yours it must be difficult to know that you have probably another 35-40 years on this planet. I feel quite sorry for people like you, life is a gift and you seem to spend a great deal of it complaining. Its quite sad.

Life certainly is a gift when you can go through it expecting others to pay for your mistakes.

Besides, the OP now seems to be backtracking and suggesting that more than one brick may have been used...........

milkydrink

vickyj wrote: »

.
It is an 54 reg astra and the damage is as follows
all on rear nearside
1. graze style scratch to rear quaterlight window close to boot
2: graze to centre of back window about 40 cms over
3: dent to centre of back door in centre
4: dent & scratch parralell to one aboveabout 25 cms over

That explains why its £700 then, pretty new car & lots of damage.
Quarterlight windows are often curved (& therefore expensive)
Back windows are heated (& therefore expensive)
A back door or work on it.
& whatever part of the car number 4 is.

I'm afraid you will have to suck it in, whatever your suspicions about the damage. It is possible that some was already there??? But you can't prove that??? It is also probable that the lady/man is telling the truth & unluckly the brick bounced skimmed across & hit a few places.
Hopefully yours or the other parents insurance will go some way towards it, you pay your premiums you are well within your rights to claim & you have made it clear you don't expect the car owner to pay/claim.
It was just unlucky that so much damage happened. Hopefully the boys have learnt an (expensive) lesson & its the first & last time you have an incident like this.

Kids that age can DO a lot of damage, my cousin & I together broke a window with half a concrete block (we had to lift it together) & I was about 5 & he a year younger, 4:eek: . It was delibrate too:eek:

nadnad

chuckles1066 wrote: »

The best way possible for whom?



If you drive into the back of someone then you're negligent? Why should someone else have to pay for your negligence?



Life certainly is a gift when you can go through it expecting others to pay for your mistakes.

Besides, the OP now seems to be backtracking and suggesting that more than one brick may have been used...........

the best way possible for all concerned - if the other party is willing to try and put this through their insurance then why would you care? after all it was a child belonging to this person who caused the damage as well.

I would never expect anyone to pay for my mistakes - but if i pay an insurance premium which covers a mistake I have made then I would be quite foolish not to use this insurance - especially when speaking from a money saving point of view - which after all is what this internet site is about.

the OP is not backtracking she is telling us the circumstances and it does sound a little strange that one brick would cause so much damage - but again this is 7 year old boys we're talking about here and the full story may yet come out. the OP however has not said she will not contribute towards the damage.

Chuckles you really are grasping at straws here, and may I add that it is most likely a blessing you have not had the good fortune to have children because with an attitude like yours no child could have emerged without major damage being caused.

conradmum

chuckles1066 wrote: »

The best way possible for whom?

If you drive into the back of someone then you're negligent? Why should someone else have to pay for your negligence?

What a p*sspoor argument. If you drive into the back of someone your insurance pays for your negligence. I suppose you're the single person who says - no, it was my fault, why should everyone else's insurance premiums go up because I was stupid?
Which planet are you from? I suggest you go back there as you sure don't understand the way things work on this one.

scheming_gypsy

kimevans wrote: »

That explains why its £700 then, pretty new car & lots of damage.
Quarterlight windows are often curved (& therefore expensive)
Back windows are heated (& therefore expensive)
A back door or work on it.
& whatever part of the car number 4 is.

not wanting to get back into another argument about it but what the OP said about the damage does go towards what i said.

If 1 brick was thrown it's practically impossible to hit the back window, light and the door. For a brick to hit the window and then to graze the light just below the boot - 40cms away then it'd have landed on the window and then slid / rolled down the window and caught the light. How can it have damaged the door as well especially as it's a dent in the door? if the brick caused 2 dents to a door almost 2 feet apart (practically impossible in itself) then it wouldn't be able to do the lights and window and vice versa.

It sounds like the car owner is trying to cash in and get more repairs done to the car.

scheming_gypsy

Addiscomber wrote: »

In my experience people who resort to writing or saying this recognise that their position is untenable.

so you have plenty of experience with 6ft odd 7 year olds do you?

my 'end of, simple as comment' was placed directly under my comment about the kids NOT being able to see the brick hit the car.

So to clarify just for you.. a 7 year old cannot see over a 6ft wall from ground level. End of argument on that point, it's as simple as that.

Does that make sense or would you like pictures drawn with spaghetti and meat balls to make it clearer ?

pink_phantom

chinagirl wrote: »

.............................

Oh get real! They are children. You used to be one once, and I am sure you were not supervised 24/7 !

If there were bricks in my garden, I would either move them or watch the kids. A bit of foresite never hurt anyone.

gundo

thesaint wrote: »

The point I am trying to make is that their is no legal obligation for the OP to pay anything at all. She is being decent offering to do 'the right thing'. I haven't claimed on my car insurance in 20 years of driving, but my premiums go up each year regardless.

Insurance serves one purpose, if one chooses to not claim on it, that is your perogative.

You must be unlucky as my premiums haven't gone up every year, as I get older I'm deemed less of a risk and I'm paying the same (in £'s) as I was 20 years ago, so on the basis of inflation/rising cost of insurance I'm actually paying a lot less. So I disagree with the premise that insurance premiums go up every year, mine haven't except for fault claims/loss of ncb/purchase of Ferrari etc.

As regards obligation, if her child damaged someone else's property she's responsible, the child himself is under the age of majority and doesn't earn so can't pay himself.

Claiming/not claiming is my perogative, that's true where I can afford to pay for the repairs out of my own pocket but means little if I can't. My point was that, personally and I'm sure a lot of others wouldn't just blithely claim on their car insurance for the reasons stated.